Thanks. This is a strange policy for the "feature-request", which offten eventually het dozens of both negative and positive votes.

Technically creating the site, and opening it on the internet, requires a lot of work, but is not, nowadays, difficult. I suppose you mean that attracting people to it to make it live is difficult. In that case, if the site has some feature that distinguish it clearly from MO, I am sure that a letter published in Notices of the AMS and a few other similar publications, promoting the new site and explaining its interest, will attract a lot of users. Speaking for myself, I would certainly (if I am allowed to) go on the site out curiosity, and make it my new home if I like it.

@Harry Gindi "I saw a somewhat senior colleague harassed for giving a good but sophisticated answer". Where can I learn more about this?

Obviously, I am not again small technical changes, but big change (analogous to change of constitution, in the political realm) are to be avoided. Each one (like joining the stack exchange network) has been felt as a treason by many, who stopped contributing. In my field, 10 years ago, there were dozens of regular contributors. Now there is just one, David Loeffler.

I mean "remove your contributions" of course. Saying that you are "free to live" is a sick joke, honestly. I know that removing one's contribution is illegal, meaning that preventing a user to leave is ultimately based on the force of a gang of armed men, as Engels calls the State.You can be proud of yourself.

Well, users have the freedom to leave but no to take away their possessions with them (questions, answers, comments), are they? Since these "possessions" are the entire presence of the user on MO, the "freedom to leave" is, indeed an empty phrase.

"any clearly posed mathematical problem that I cannot solve in under 10 minutes should pass" I strongly agree too, and I would agree with the same statement with 10 replaced by 2 -- "I" being, as in the original answer, fedja.

Sure, but will it happen again?

This is not the history as it happened. The comments were not moved altogether to the chat room. Instead, some, representing one side of the political conflict around this discussion, were removed, while the other were left as comments. The question here to moderators is "will that happen again?".

@Yemon. Yes, I agree. But this defect is partially solved by the upvotes of other comments with opposed views. This is why it is particularly dishonest in a case like this to censor the comments defending one point of view and not the comments defending the opposing one.

This trivial post is as of-topin in MetaMo as it would be on MO.